Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter is scheduled to open a little over a month from now. In order to get ready for it, I’m going to post a few things about Ken Ham and young earth creationism that didn’t make it into my book, The Heresy of Ham, that hopefully I’ll make available to coincide with the opening of the Ark Encounter.
In this post, I comment on Ken Ham’s response to Fred Clark, a blogger who has written quite a bit on Ham. Read, Enjoy, Share…and be sure to subscribe to this blog if you haven’t yet.
Answers in Genesis is Like Star Trek…(with better dating methods?)
In a November 18, 2014 blog post entitled, “Biblical Creation is Like Star Trek,” Ham takes on blogger Fred Clark who accuses AiG of using a lot of “scientific sounding words” to make you suspend your disbelief and accept what they say (like “warp speed”). Clearly Ken Ham takes issue with such a characterization of AiG. It’s just not a bunch of “scientific sounding words” that ultimately don’t mean anything—AiG is legit in is scientific objections to, well, everything in modern biology, geology, and astronomy!
Ham first turns to why he has problems with radiometric dating: there are unprovable assumptions behind radiometric dating. Mind you, he ever gets around to exactly stating any scientific evidence that would suggest there are problems with radiometric dating. Instead, what Ken Ham does is…yes, you guessed it…appeal to his two fictitious categories of “observational” and “historical” science! Radiometric dating isn’t reliable because it is historical science, and historical science can’t be tested (because Ham says it can’t be tested)—it is simply beliefs shaped by your assumptions.
On top of that, Ham points out that there could be instances of contamination of rocks that would affect their dating. Fair enough…that certainly is a possibility. But here’s where that objection ultimately fails. Ken Ham would have you believe that scientists simply do one test on a rock, and date the rock based on that one test. He fails to tell you that scientists actually do upwards of forty different types of tests on a rock before they decide how old a rock is. One can reasonable raise questions if only one test says a rock is 60 million years old; but if forty different tests say a rock is 50-60 million years old…really? Ham’s “contamination objection” simply doesn’t cut it. For it to be true, you would have to believe that every rock and all the rock layers around the world—everything that has been tested and found to be millions of years old—you would have to believe that ALL OF IT has been contaminated…ALL OF IT, WORLD-WIDE. Is that believable? I think not.
And so, Ham believes that measuring the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes is “historical science” that can’t be tested, observed or measured. The only “assumption” made in radiometric dating is that radioactive isotopes decay at a consistent rate; therefore scientists can quite literally “do the math” and figure out how old certain rocks are. But that’s not going to convince Ken Ham, because those scientists weren’t there “way back when,” and things like doing science based on the consistent laws of nature and math—well, that’s just not going to cut it, because it is “historical science” which can’t, by Ham’s own made up definition, have any evidence…except for Genesis 1-11, which Ham claims to be God’s eye-witness historical narrative of the origin of the material universe: “This account of Earth’s history is a reliable one because God was there!”
So let’s be clear: Ham discounts all the types of radiometric dating which point to the earth being millions of years old because He claims the Bible teaches the earth is only 6,000 years old. But the Bible doesn’t teach that. Not only that, but at no time in Church history has the Church ever taught that. Not only that, but solid biblical exegesis of Genesis 1-11 doesn’t teach that.
Observational Science Confirms the Young Age of the Earth….wait…what?
Ham then says:
“Our challenges to the historical science-laden assumptions of radiometric dating are based on our starting point, the Creator God’s eyewitness account of the creation of the heavens and Earth as recorded in His Word, and then on solid, observational science that was done in world-class labs, and that is scientifically documented.”
So right here, he is labelling radiometric dating as nothing more than “historical science-laden assumptions,” admitting that his starting point is his own assumption that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be read as God’s eye-witness account of creation, and then claiming that “observational science” has “scientifically documented” this.
But wait a second! Did he just say that observational science done in labs has scientifically documented the age of the earth? How is that possible? According to Ken Ham himself, observational science can only build technology, and the only kind of science that deals with origins is historical science, but that can’t be tested and measured, and subsequently documented! Ham’s own explanation defies even his own questionable logic. I can almost hear Captain Kirk now, “KENNNNNNN!!!!!”
Genetics, DNA….and “Molecules to Man” Evolution
Another reason why Ken Ham rejects evolution is that he claims it requires new information in the DNA code to cause one life form to transition to another life form, or as Ham puts it, “You can’t turn a dinosaur into a bird without the addition of new information! But no known process adds information to DNA that could result in molecules-to-man evolution.”
Well, to the point, Ham is just wrong. Genetics and DNA studies indicate that all the information is already there in the genome. What happens is that, depending on the environment, somehow, there are “switches” within, let’s say, a squirrel’s genetic code that turn off and on. So if in a desert type region, a “switch” is turned on to produce light brown hair on the squirrels of that region, whereas the same squirrel, if put into a different environment, would eventually produce descendants that grow darker brown hair, because the “dark brown hair switch” would be turned on. As incomplete as that example is, the point is this: the adaptation that happens in nature isn’t a matter of “adding new genetic information,” but rather accessing the genetic information that is already there in the genome, behind “genetic locked doors,” so to speak.
The environment is the key that turns certain genetic switches on or off. It truly is amazing. And yes, one could respond with, “Well that’s all fine and good, but that only explains minor changes, not the major changes that evolution claims.” Perhaps…and that is one of the questions I have: to what extent is evolution true? Those are valid questions. But the point here is that Ham’s reason for rejection the totality of evolution is wrong—his claim that it requires new information to be added to the genome is factually incorrect. To put it more simply: he’s lying.
The Law of Biogenesis…(No, Mr. Ham, Evolution doesn’t address it, despite what you claim)
Another objection to evolution that Ham gives is what he calls the “Law of Biogenesis,” which states that life cannot come from non-life. He says, “There is no known way to violate this law, and yet evolutionists have faith that at some time in the past, by unknown processes, life spontaneously arose from non-life.” Well, he’s right on the point that life cannot come from non-life. But he’s absolutely wrong when he claims evolutionists “have faith that at some point in the past…life spontaneously arouse from non-life.” The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life question. It addresses how the variety of life forms came to be once there already was life. Or more simply put, Ham’s objection to evolution is based on an issue that evolution doesn’t address. And if evolution doesn’t address it, how can it be a valid objection to evolution? It can’t.
Here’s my point: regardless of whether or not one believes evolutionary theory, it is a fact as plain as day that Ken Ham makes it impossible for one to adequately investigate the theory because he purposely misrepresents what it even is.
